Tag Archives: same-sex marriage

Last evening, we watched a one-hour program on marriage equality in Iowa. It featured a debate between the two sides, along with a film that gave a brief history of the issue and interviewed a number of same-sex couples about the importance of marriage in their lives.

Bob Vander Plaats, the acknowledged leader of the religious right’s successful effort to unseat three of the Supreme Court justices who ruled on the now famous Varnum v. O’Brien case, was one of the debaters.

We got the usual crap and misinformation. Our sacred Founding Fathers set up a government based on God and the bible, God mandated that marriage was the union of one man and one woman, therefore. . . .

Course none of that is particularly true. In fact it is mostly untrue.

And then he went on to say that all studies show that children grow up best when they come from a family that includes one mother and one father.

Except there are NO such studies that show this. All the studies show that a loving nurturing parent(s) produce well-adjusted happy children. Apparently Vander Plaats never read the opinion in Varnum, where the unanimous court also pointed out that those who were opposed to marriage equality also made the claim that it was detrimental to children without producing any evidence.

Failed Republican Gubernatorial candidate, Vander Plaats also argued that the “law is still the law” since the Supreme Court has no power to legislate from the bench. Except that the Constitution of Iowa is superior to any legislative act and like in every other state of the union, Iowa’s Supreme Court is called upon to determine constitutionality of any law that is challenged on constitutional grounds.

I guess in Vander Idiot’s world the Jim Crow laws are still on the books in the South, and I guess he thinks that the SCOTUS sent a letter to Kansas and said, we don’t think your school segregation is lawful, so please put it up for a vote among Kansans and let us know what they decide. That’s what Vander Dope thinks the Iowa court should have done–put sent it back for a vote by the people.

Does Vander Crap understand that even a constitutional amendment in Iowa would still have to be upheld by the Federal government’s equal protection clause?

Does Vander Stupid realize that we periodic re-election of sitting judges is not meant to remove judges who sometimes you disagree with but rather to remove those guilty of serious malfeasance or incompetence?

Does Vander Loonie know that his out-of-state sponsored and paid for campaign against these justices amounted to nothing more than vengeance, and changed nothing in terms of the law?

Does Vander Crazy know that by a huge margin, mostly nobody in Iowa thinks that the allowing of gays the rights of marriage has had any impact on their lives whatsoever?

Does Vander Sicko know that claiming that this is some kind of slippery slope where next men will be marrying their daughters and women their dogs is nothing but a red herring, so ludicrous and bereft of common sense as to be not worth anybody’s time to argue. Can you prove that those types of alliances are detrimental and dangerous and pose health risks? Certainly. End of story.

Does Vander Jackass want to have a world in which his interpretation of the bible is mandated for everyone else to follow? Sure he does.

Does Vander Clueless understand that there is such a thing as separation of church and state because it’s been found that politics and religion made bad bedfellows? Certainly, but folks like him don’t care. As long as it’s their religious teaching that is enforced.

Since Bob is a right-wing fringe wacko, nobody took him seriously. Well, with a ton of outside money and blatant misinformation, he managed to convince something like 300,000+ Iowa voters that somehow the justices had taken over their right to decide these things by vote. It is not their right, and never was.

The same mistake will not be made in 2012 when more of the justices who ruled in the Varnum case will come up for election. Groups across the state are busily forming, and speaking out, informing the public of the truth.

Vander Nuts and his band of mean-spirited and hateful wingnuts know their window of opportunity is narrow. More and more states are joining Iowa. New York is ready to add marriage equality to their state law. Polls now have a solid majority who favor either marriage or civil union for gay couples. And worse for them, inside those polls the story is even more telling. As you move down in age, the numbers go even higher. Plainly the next generation will not even consider such discrimination.

That’s just one of the things that has rattled my cage today. How ’bout you?

Make no mistake, the Iowa Supreme Court is under attack. The attacker comes under the guise of nice sounding organizations such as the Iowa Family Policy Center, and American Family Association.

They are neither nice nor frankly truthful. They are homophobic and largely fundogelicals who are intent of forcing everyone to obey their peculiar interpretation of Christian scripture.

In Iowa, Supreme Court Justices are chosen by the governor but face “re-election” on a regular basis thereafter. This system has worked well for a very long time. In fact the Contrarian, has as a matter of personal policy voted against “incumbent” judges for years, to no effect. Re-election, as is true most everywhere in the country, is virtually certain.

Not so this year. No the powers of hatred are at work in our fair state. And all because of one case.

In April of 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, declared in Varnum et al v. Brien, that a state statute that limited marriage to a union between a man and woman, was unconstitutional, violating the equal protection clause of the state’s constitution, a clause modeled after the US Constitution found in the 14th Amendment.

In so doing, it caused an uproar among the right-wing fundogelicals and their agenda to make America, and all its states, follow their version of Judaeo-Christian morality, one that is not at all warranted by an objective view of either Constitution.

Bob Vander Plaats heads up the team that is trying to remove equal treatment for gays and lesbians in our state. He is the failed Rethuglian gubernatorial candidate, losing to Terry Branstad in the past nominating election. He is a staunch anti-gay advocate.

Ads are being run in Iowa, paid for Vander Plaats and his minions, claiming that our Justices, (three of whom are up for re-election) have voted “their own personal beliefs” and have thwarted the will of the people of Iowa, as expressed through the legislation that was overturned.

This of course, is anything but true. When is the last time that you were requested to pass judgment on a proposed piece of legislation before your representative or senator cast a vote? Most legislation is passed without any consultation of any kind, and reflects at best the desires of a couple of hundred individuals within a state who claim to speak for the three million whom they represent in some fashion.

It is, as well, ludicrous to argue that all nine justices were personal proponents of same-sex marriage going in, and simply voted their personal ideology. That would be a coincidence in the extreme.

Worse, making a claim that Justices, or any judge sits for the purpose of following the current “will of the people” however determined, goes against everything that Judicial Review stands for and has stood for since the time ofMarbury v Madison, the US Supreme Court’s first announcement that indeed the courts are the ultimate arbitrators of whether legislation passes constitutional muster.

Clearly people like Vander Plaats and the various anti-gay groups, those listed above as well as others like NOM (National Organization for Marriage), know better. They are not unaware of the job description of Justices in Iowa or throughout the land. They are aware that it is not the job of Justices to pass on “voter opinion,” in fact, they are everywhere to do exactly the opposite.

Justices are mandated to stand above the currents of the day, and decide as dispassionately as possible the constitutionality of various laws. Do they square with the actual words and implications of the Constitution and settled interpretations, or do they not?

As is rightly asserted, if Iowa chooses to ban marriage equality, then, it’s only recourse is to amend its own constitution. There are long in-place rules and procedures for accomplishing that. It is precisely because Vander Plaats and his bigots know that Iowans have no stomach for doing so that they are trying to slip this in through the back door by appealing to untruths about the job description of the Bench.

Okay, that was pretty figurative, but I’ve learned to test the waters before I open my eyes fully.

Most days, as thoughts begin to stream into my consciousness (damn consciousness!), I decide I would prefer to remain unknowing.

Yesterday proved to be a lousy day. Not like you get to choose much.

We got big car problems. The brakes are out. Break in the line apparently. That lane running will do that to ya.

That is scheduled for a fix up on Monday. The Contrarian will have to attend the surgery, though he is not partial to a lot of blood. The reason? We have no other operating vehicle. It’s just up the way in Troy, so at least he’s among friends.

Of more concern is some behaviors that suggest the transmission is aching. Again, that lane business no doubt. It has eaten nearly every vehicle over the years. The Contrarian hopes it is more “linkage” than actual transmission, which would be a big sight cheaper. We just got done spending a cool $250 to replace the back window and that pretty much exhausts this month’s “fun cash.” Yeah, fun is right.

Bill, our mechanic, doesn’t “do” transmissions. Hopefully he can at least give us an idea. We haven’t made any further plans yet. Let’s just hope the old Bronco limps to the garage and gets her stopping capabilities shorn up. Then worry about the other I guess.

Just a thought God. You might want to ask those still in the womb what their preference is here. I don’t recall asking to be born. And there are days, when I wonder exactly what is so hot about all this existence stuff. Not meaning to say I wanna leave soon or anything. As long as I’m here, I’d like time to find, ya know, HAPPINESS once in a freakin’ while!

And thanks for all the kind comments yesterday. I was snarky as heck I know. And now you know why. Just a general state of “why should I give a good flying f**k about anything!”

The “Mosque” is all the rage these days, and we’ve provided plenty of linkage, so I won’t bore you with the usual and ongoing round of he said, she said. But there is a great little article in Vanity Fair by Amitava Kumar, which gives a different perspective worthy of your read. As always, the comments are worth their weight in gold.

Funny where you find enlightenment. Take Mexico for instance. Land of Catholicism? Yes, one would assume so, yet, with nary a whimper the entire country is now a place where gays can freely marry. It applies to all the states of the nation, and has been upheld by their Supreme Court. The funny thing is that the Mayor is suing a Cardinal for defamation when the Cardinal claims that the Mayor bribed the Supreme Court into upholding gay marriage and adoption. Interesting place that Mexico.

One of the gauges I use to determine my own daily sanity is whether I’ve stopped to think about what’s going on with Kate Gosselin, her troop of eight, and her about to be ex. The answer is nope, haven’t thought of the woman in the past several months. I’M SANE. Next.

Don’t hold you breath. It’s not likely to happen. Foxy Propaganda will not soon be lettin’ go of the logo, “Fair and Balanced” EVEN THOUGH THROUGH THEIR CORPORATE PARENT, NEWS CORP, THEY HAVE DONATED $1 MILLION DOLLARS TO THE REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION. Spokesmen for Foxy say it will not interfere with their news gathering techniques one whit. Well buffooneries, we don’t much care about your news gathering. Rather it’s your INTERPRETING techniques that could bear some work. As I said, don’t hold your breath on this one.

D-Cap has a nice post on conversations on “national topics. You know, the ” we need to have a national conversation on abortion.” Except we never do, and if we did, the nuts who only listen to Fox wouldn’t listen to anybody from the left, and the left wouldn’t listen to anybody from the right, and well, you get the idea. We do need the conversation, but the only people who would show up are the two polarized sides and all they would do is yell.

Sooo, it’s Thursday, and you know what that means! Oh, maybe you don’t? Well, it means the weekend is only a coupla days away. That used to be the only thing I frankly lived for.

Now, not so much. Being REtired ( not more tired mind ya) but, as in not working a formal gig meaning job, I don’t pay as much attention to the humpy Wednesday, maudlin Monday kinda thing any more. But it’s hard to shake, cuz the rest of the world seems to, so well, I succumb to public pressure.

Which all means nothing whatsoever. But as usual, I aim to dazzle you with my wordy abilities.

Saying that, hey, ever wondered where all the smart people are? Other that moi and Contrarian here, well, things are probably a little intellectually bereft here in the hinterlands of northern Linn county Iowa. Not to cast aspersions upon my fellow Iowans or nuttin’ . I am not a caster, having no rod and reel, nor a bean to save my soul. Should those things work at saving one’s soul that is. Anyway, The Atlantic has a kinda weird story and charts about where all the smart people live. Take a look.

Oh I got a new word for ya from Dr. McGrath over at Exploring our Matrix. It’s sarchasm. Meaning those who are unable to grasp the sarcasm of what you said. I thought it was a good one. He had a couple of others. It was one of yesterday’s posts I believe. He’s a multiple poster, which might be sexually deviant, or maybe just an addiction. I don’t know for sure.

Well, dintcha just know he would? Disgraced fundie gay blade, Ted Haggard and his stand by yer man wifey, are planning on starting their own church. I don’t think the New Life Church of which he was the head honcho before the, err, scandal, wanted him back. So, because of public demand he is baaakk. Shall we all say a prayer for the poor souls who will become his newest victims?

Speaking of fraudulent stuff (we were weren’t we?) the Bible and Interpretation has a great article on some folks penchant for stuff that “proves” faith. We are talking about shrouds and pieces of the cross, and other such stuff. If you are religiousy, you might enjoy it.

If you want some heavy duty reading about mind-body issues–how does our brain relate to our our mind–then read a thoughtful post from Robert Lawrence Kuhn, at Science and Religion Today. It’s fascinating if a bit complicated to untangle. Best I can discern is that there is no real consensus among the experts. Are we reproducible or is there something about us that is, well, not biological?

Note to self: when night dreaming (wakefully contemplating the day past) and an idea for a blog post comes along, write it down. You will surely forget it by morning. And I did. So this ain’t it.

I’ve checked my mailbox, both snail and e, and so far, no letter from the President. He does contact me from time to time you know, asking for my help. I do the best I can. But, sure that the letter is most likely just “lost in the mail” which means its not lost at all, but IN THE MAIL. . . I thought it best to give my advice right away, so there would be no delay. Time is running short.

The Reuglicans are promising that the American (right wing barely humans) public will rise up in November and silly slap the prez for his arrogance in actually taking care of people and their health. Well, not so fast there partner. I’m thinking a new sheriff is in Dodge and the old rules may not apply.

I got to thinking about this as I thought about what happened in my own dear state of Iowa over the same-sex marriage brouhaha that occurred last year. There were all manner of threats of throw the bums out, repeal, replace, reproach all those deemed responsible. Much of it is was silly, and illegal frankly.

The truth is there is really only one way to alter the decision in Iowa and that is by constitutional amendment. And realistically, nobody sees that as likely, and even if it is, it wouldn’t get to a vote anytime before 2013. Now that is nearly four long years since the case was decided. And guess what? Time matters.

Time is the enemy of those who have a burning issue, no matter what it is. As we have pointed out before, Merikans have a very short attention span. The rabid crazies? No, they eat breath and sleep their issue, but they are a tiny gnat in a tornado. The majority of citizenry is on to other things–vacation spots, 401K outlays, summer soccer school, and what movie to watch tonight.

Moreover, the wackos promised utterly dire consequences from the same-sex decision. The state would be overrun by swishy girly men and crass talkin’ lesbos, all here to recruit, take up residence, and otherwise transform Iowa into a paradise of gayness, all part, mind you, of the international gay agenda, which any self-respecting homophobe can tell you all about, if’in you ask politely.

So as time goes on and nothing awful happens, meaning the doorbell isn’t ringing off the door frame requesting your children be given up to the only real lifestyle that matters, and as the time for planting violets approaches, the argument grows thin. I mean, explain to me Mr/Mrs/Ms wacko exactly why I need to drop everything, expend millions, all to prevent that nice couple that lives three blocks over from marrying?

Same thing with the Health care reform law. Time will prove out that nothing much has changed insofar as those things one holds near and dear–one’s sacrosanct possession of one’s private insurance (for them that has it of course). No tax increases, no ticket for your next checkup in 2012 as the first available date, no refusal to treat your asthma–you smoked away your lungs, tough titty buster–breathe as best you can.

While I’d like there to be a few more months to let this sink in, I think that a good deal of the fear and confusion will be decidedly forgotten come November.

So, Barack, my man, let me tell you what you really need to do. Everything and anything to produce jobs. I just told you that these people have short attention spans. And doing without that new WII game is getting tiresome. People want jobs, so they can buy things. They do need jobs to pay the bills and feed their kids too of course. So listen up and dag gum it find some jobs.

I propose that you start tons of public works. It wouldn’t be permanent employment, but they won’t grump, they will be happy to have the dough in hand.

Oh and a couple of times a month, travel to some nice niche of Merika, preferably where there is some purple mountain majesty, or oceans white with foam. Give a rousing speech ‘splainin’ all this Washington stuff, and take lots of pics. They love the keepsakes.

I’m thinking that the Dems will be doin’ just fine if you do that. Who was that other party? I think I’ve forgotten their name already. . . Re. . .something, GO. . .let me remember? All I recall is that they campaigned on NO and pretty much didn’t play nicely with others. And you remember what your 3rd grade teacher said about THAT don’t you? But on the up side, they will be forever immortalized in the dictionary, under two words, irrelevant and cypher.

And then there is our very on wingnut, Steven King from Iowa who when asked how many uninsured there were in his district, ignored the question twice as it doesn’t really matter, since he “represents freedom loving Americans.” Apparently he doesn’t bother to represent those who are dying and bleeding from lack of health care.

Most hysterical of all is Rush (da man) Limbaugh, who blames the Hoffman loss in upstate NY to none other than Newt (I can be drafted) Gingrich. Newt was insufficiently supportive of Hoffman’s candidacy you see. No matter than when Hoffman opened his mouth, nothing much came out except a vague sentence or two of obvious platitudes.

Sarah, (the quitter) Palin, being the rather limited intellect that she is, of course, said that things were right on track for 2010! Yeah, right Sarah, that was the plan all along right?

Course we have already learned about the importance of these elections. Depending of course on whom you might conversate with. Rethugs tell you that Obama is doomed and Limpaugh actually claims that he will lose in 2012 regardless of the GOP candidate. Done deal. Of course the exit polling suggests that most races were local in nature and most voters claim that Obama had nothing to do with their vote. It remains unclear just what we can surmise from any of them, or all of them collectively.

It was disheartening to say the least, that Maine’s population decided that it could not abide same sex marriage. No wonder given the horrific lying commercials I saw them running. Worse, most of this anti-gay thing is of course perpetrated by the extreme rightwing evangelical nuttery. Sad to see that they as usual, don’t find anything sinful in lying.

Britannica Blog makes a very good argument that where issues of minority rights are concerned, the electorate should never have the final say. That would seem obvious wouldn’t it? It seems to me that the solution is for a gay couple to apply for a marriage license, be denied, and sue. The issue will then end up before the state supreme court. Generally speaking, courts have found no legal basis for the denial. So this may end the same way that Iowa ended. Course, there is plenty of planning to try to get the subject on the ballot in Iowa, but it will take some years to do so by constitutional means. And the people at large are moving steadily and slowly toward gay rights with every day. Next generation folks suspect this will be a non-issue by the time they are adults.

You might want to keep a watch out for a new documentary about God coming soon. Peter Rodgers travels the world and asks everyone he meets: “What is God?” No doubt the answers say as much about us as they do about our faith. Stop by and read the full article at Religious Dispatches.

Well, enough of all that. The sun is shining, another book showed up in my mailbox (that’s two this week), I’ve been reading about Abraham all day on and off, and it’s popcorn night in the meadow. Life is good. More fun and frivolity tomorrow.

As I mentioned the other day, we just conducted a short forum discussion at our church on the issue of same-sex marriage. In light of the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision opening the way for same-sex civil marriage, our diocese is suddenly having to grapple with how we will handle it.

We had already been blessings such unions, but now we must determine whether we as a Church will move forward into the actual marriage arena.

So this book could not come at a better time. I am deeply thankful to Church Publishing in allowing me this opportunity to review this singularly invaluable book on the subject.

Many of you are fans of Tobias Stanislas Haller already from his wonderful and engaging website, “In a Godward Direction.” It will be no surprise that he has written an extraordinary book in Reasonable and Holy.

Frankly I must admit that I was somewhat surprised as I read it. I have read a reasonable amount in this area, and was prepared to revisit the usual issues of what is authentic Paul, and so on, and the various arguments that certain portions of scripture, namely 1Timothy should be ignored. That is not what I found.

Tobias Haller is a good deal smarter than that. He wisely notes that there is plenty of evidence of redaction and so on, but that in the end, we must deal with the text as received by the Church. In this I think he is right. The entire discussion gets side tracked when we first have to convince that perhaps not all of scripture is “valid” in some way.

This of course, is not to say, that he doesn’t examine the text quite thoroughly and make a fine case that much of what we “think” it says, is inaccurate. He does this by “unpacking” the text as it seems to relate to same-sex relationships. By the use of rabbinic writings, and those of Richard Hooker, as well as countless theologians and biblical experts, Haller unpeels the onion of meaning attached to the various words of scripture that we have come to believe mean homosexual behavior.

Tobias does this in excruciating detail. I don’t mean that to mean boring in any sense, but he essentially leaves no argument unanswered. From the most serious and large to the most silly and small, he responds in a gentle, reasonable, thoughtful manner. At no time is he dismissive of those he argues against. He looks for common ground.

Without doing violence to the text themselves, he makes a good case that marriage is about more than procreation and that this is supported by Genesis itself, particularly in the second creation story of Genesis 2. He shows how God means for humans to love and support one another and that these are as valid a goal of marriage as procreation.

Haller points out, that we don’t have to ignore or reverse Church teaching, so much as we must and can grow past it, much as we have done with other issues down through the ages. We have adapted scripture to a changing world, and we can recognize that there is an overriding concern expressed in the bible and by Jesus that we love and uphold good rather than remain tied to traditions that no longer serve that purpose.

There are several examples of what are rather clear directives in the law, yet even though they were held to apply in the early Christian communities, we have long since discarded them. For instance, the ban against eating the blood of animals was upheld in the Jerusalem Council in Acts, yet we have abandoned that practice largely, though the Eastern Orthodox still adhere to it.

Similarly, there is a clear ban on usury, the use of interest, yet our economy today is totally dependent on the concept and we now define that prohibition to mean only “unreasonable” interest.

Haller is by no means the first to claim that the so-called prohibitions against homosexual behavior are deeply tied to cultic idolatry, prostitution, and rape. It has been the considered opinion of many that this is the case, and that the case of loving, monogamous same-sex relationships were not even thought of in that time and place. Thus we do no real violence to scripture in declaring that gay and lesbian relationships that are mutually loving and supportive should be excluded from scriptural restriction.

The book itself is less than 200 pages, but it is literally bursting with excellent exegetical scholarship. It is most clear that Tobias Haller is an excellent mind, and has thoroughly, carefully, and with great insight examined the biblical field as it relates to this subject.

I suspect that it will go down as one of the “classics” in the field, and will be used by countless colleges and universities as a primary text for discussion. I know that it has served me well in deeply enlightening me on the nuances of argument to be made. I have always felt slightly unsatisfied by the arguments so far, and Tobias has given me a real sense of feeling grounded in truth here.

It can serve as well for a text in our various churches when and if we choose to address the issue. And I submit, that we must address it. We are faced with a deep unfairness here. Our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers are enormous assets to our ecclesial life, and we squander their gifts and talents at our peril. It is what Jesus would do I submit. This book helps us get where we need to be, and does so with gentle tenderness.

Let me close with Tobias’s own words:

But the body that matters most at this point is the body of Christ, the church, of which and in which we are individual members–and in that edifice we build with what we have and what we are. Do our actions build it up, or tear it down? Do we edify as building blocks and living stones, or serve as stumbling blocks and stones of scandal about which the builders are bewildered, as indeed Jesus said of himself? As organs in the body, do we contribute to its overall well-being, or spend our energy in attempts at ecclesiastical self-mutilation in removing portions deemed cancerous or malignant, but which may be vital to the health of the whole? Do we overly concern ourselves with outward appearances and forms, or seek the content and the values that lie within? Do we concern ourselves with what goes into the church, or what comes out of it? Do we love much, or little?

Tobias Haller shows us the way to a new maturity and lovingness in our faith. Let us pray that we are wise enough and loving enough to respond.